From among the complexities of NS analysis of the Urheimat question it is worth calling attention to the way the nineteenth-century view expressed by… - Sheldon Pollock

Such voices … in any case are pretty much in the minority. The dominant ideology is that which ascribes clear priority and absolute competence to shastric codification.

An example of this more sophisticated orientalism is the work of Paul Thieme... esp. his "analysis of the Sanskrit word ārya, where at the end he adverts to the main point of his research: to go beyond India in order to catch the 'distant echo of Indo-germanic customs'.

We may in fact characterize the ideological effects of the shastric paradigm more broadly as follows: First, all contradiction between the model of cultural knowledge and actual cultural change is thereby at once transmuted and denied; creation is really re-creation, as the future is, in a sense, the past. Second, the living, social, historical, contingent tradition is naturalized, becoming as much a part of the order of things as the laws of nature themselves: Just as the social, historical phenomenon of language is viewed by Mīmāṃsā as natural and eternal, so the social dimension and historicality of all cultural practices are eliminated in the shastric paradigm. And finally, through such denial of contradiction and reification of tradition, the sectional interests of pre-modern India are universalized and valorized. The theoretical discourse of śāstra becomes in essence a practical discourse of power.